M/S JAI KAUSHAL MEDICAL STORE AND ORS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/13257/2026 · 2026-08-05
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19685 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19685 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.13257 of 2026
Decided on: 5th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S Jai Kaushal Medical Store & Anr. …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Narender Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Suraj Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No.4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Narender Sharma,
learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No.4 & 5, respectively.
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
2.
This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.4 and 5-Bank to consider and finalise, within a time bound period, the One Time Settlement (OTS) application dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) of petitioner No.1 strictly in terms of the offer letter dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-3), and to accept the settlement amount from the petitioners in terms thereof;
(ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing/setting aside the impugned reference/proceedings initiated under Section 72 & 73 of the Himachal Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1968, pending before respondent No.3, qua the petitioners, including notice dated referred to as Annexure P-4, or in the alternative, directing respondent No.3 to keep the said proceedings in abeyance till the OTS application of the petitioners is finally considered and decided.”
3.
The case set up by the petitioners is that they had availed a cash credit limit facility of Rs.5 Lakhs from respondents No.4 & 5-Bank vide sanction dated
16.08.2017. Due to COVID-19 pandemic and consequential adverse impact upon their business, the loan could not be repaid in time. Respondent-Bank classified the same as ‘Non-Performing Asset’. Petitioners’ prayer is that they are ready and willing for settlement of the loan account under One Time Settlement Scheme of respondents No.4 & 5- Bank. To show their bonafides, the petitioners are even willing to deposit Rs.2 Lakhs with respondents No.4 & 5- Bank within two days.
3
4.
Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5-Bank submits that One Time Settlement Scheme presently is not in force in the respondent-Bank, however, the Bank is not adverse in considering the proposal of the petitioners/ rescheduling the repayment under the loan account depending upon the proposal of the petitioners.
5.
In view of above submissions, the writ petition is
disposed of by permitting the petitioners to represent to respondents No.4 & 5-Bank for settlement of their loan account alongwith the detailed proposal within two days from today, i.e. by or before 07.08.2026. In case, this opportunity is availed by the petitioners and they also deposit Rs.2 Lakhs alongwith the application & proposal to show their bonafides, the same shall be considered and decided by respondents No.4 & 5 as per the One Time Settlement Scheme in accordance with law. The decision be taken after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of application and proposal from them.
Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case the petitioners do not avail the opportunity made available to them within the
4 timelines indicated above, the limited protection granted under this order shall cease to remain in force.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 05, 2026
Judge Mukesh